70-bed nursing home at Guysfield Residential Home, Letchworth Garden City

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing extensions and building a detached three- to four-storey, 70-bed nursing home with parking, landscaping and amenities.

“Redevelopment of existing care home and erection of detached 3 to 4 storey 70-bed residential nursing home (Class C2 use) with associated parking, landscaping, amenities and works, following demolition of extensions to existing care home.”

Officer report

The site

The existing care home lies in established grounds within the Willian Conservation Area and Green Belt, alongside open space and residential properties.

“The site currently accommodates an ‘L’ shaped two storey building set in its own well- established grounds with a number of large mature trees. The site originally hosted a dwelling which was subsequently extended and converted into a Care Home in 1986 with further extensions added after this. The on-site buildings continue to be operated as a residential care home facility which falls under the planning use class C2.”

“The site is located within the western part of the Willian Conservation Area and the original part of Guys House is identified in the Council’s Conservation Area Character Statement as a ‘building that contributes towards the character of the conservation area’.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included a 60-bed care home application that was not proceeded with, along with previous permissions for extensions and alterations.

“20/02219/FP – Full planning application for redevelopment to form a new 60-bed care home submitted in October 2020. The application was moved to Part 2 of the Planning Register on 25 July 2022 and recorded as ‘not proceeded with’ to ensure no formal decision would be issued on it.”

“19/00504/PRE – Pre application for the erection of a 60-bed care home following the demolition of existing 51-bed care home. Response issued in October 2019.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, ecology, housing and several environmental consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while waste, drainage, conservation and fire concerns remained.

“NHDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – No objection subject to conditions.”

“HCC Fire and Rescue Services – Concerns raised regarding access to the building and manoeuvring for fire service vehicles and associated equipment. Lack of information provided in relation to proposed fire suppression systems, which includes sprinkler systems. Further details should be provided by way of a Fire Strategy for the building.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Residents raised concerns about traffic, design, scale, heritage, amenities, drainage, construction impacts, utilities, Green Belt and pollution, while supporters cited care need and design.

“Objections and concerns are summarised as follows:”

“Traffic and Congestion • Poor design out of keeping with Willian Conservation Area • Size and scale of the development • Will add more traffic on surrounding roads in Willian village • Concerns around the existing capacity of local utilities infrastructure • Harmful to residential amenity • Flooding and drainage concerns • Increased noise, pollution and crime • Impact of vehicles, tools and machinery associated with the construction phase • Impact of noise and disturbance…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three public objectors spoke against the application, followed by the applicant’s agent in support.

Members’ debate

Members discussed tree retention, screening, relocation, design, energy efficiency and whether there were planning reasons to refuse the application.

“The following Members took part in the debate:”

“Queried whether a condition should be included to ensure the trees were retained. • If trees were to be retained it should be for all residents, not just the objector. • Leylandii were not a native tree species, it would be better for a native tree species to be used as screening. • Unfortunately, Leylandii trees were used for screening in the past due to the rate in which they developed, which was also problematic.”

Minutes

The vote

Permission was proposed, seconded and granted following a committee vote, subject to the conditions in the officer report.

“Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:”

“RESOLVED: That application 24/02758/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.”

Minutes